Posted by: jackslife | April 3, 2009

Gay Marriage Debate Getting Rediculous

I have held my tongue in all of the conversations on the Crunchy Con blog, mostly because it’s evident that it would do no good to argue.  It’s just a bunch of people saying that their side of the debate is obvious and that the other side is being irrational.  Very productive.  There was a comment on this post that I felt like commenting on.

The gist of the post is that the Supreme Court of Iowa has decided to step in and ammend a statute that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.  So, basically we have an activist court enforcing it’s will on the people of the state.  In the comments of this post (I’ve tried so hard to keep myself from reading the rediculous comments on Rod’s same sex marriage posts, but I’m just not strong enough), Chuck Anziulewicz says –

Your headline is very telling, Rod.

Gay marriage is being “FORCED” on whom, exactly? Certainly not on Straight people; they’ll continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together as they always have.

Marriage equality for Gay couples isn’t being “FORCED” on churches. Churches, mosques, and synagogues have never been compelled to marry anyone.

It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

This whole statement is absolutely rediculous.  First, I am so tired of SSM supporters arguing that there’s no validity to any claim that SSM will weaken marriage or cause church’s to be forced to marry gays.  There’s no way of knowing this either way.  I think it’s quite likely that it will eventually come to that.  You can’t tell me that homosexuals won’t demand that it’s unjust that their priest or pastor won’t marry them.

Secondly, he’s right that the court’s job is to uphold the constitution, which I’m sure had nothing to say about gay marriage.  This whole argument that marriage is a right that homosexuals are being unjustly excluded from is based on the notion that words should be made to mean anything that we want them to.  It’s like me saying that it’s bigotry that I’m denied disability benefits for my bad eyesight.  The problem is that bad eyesight isn’t defined as a disability, no matter how much I want it to be.

The problem with trying to defend the institution of marriage at this point is that the Church long ago gave away the true meaning of marriage.  We have allowed it to become a voidable legal contract without a hint of the sacred.  If marriage is only a civil union than homosexual couples have reason to feel discriminated against.  If we are to be made to recognize SSMs, I would prefer that the entire institution of state recognized marriages be done away with.  Marriage could then remain a sacred institution, and the government can feel free to recognize couplings as civil unions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: